Aug 26 2008
A Sound Debate on the Moral Assumptions of Abortion
The following is a debate on the morality of abortion between Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy, Boston College and David Boonin, Associate Professor of Philosophy, UC-Boulder Yale University from 12/1/2005. Each argument is the most thorough I’ve heard in quite some time. Boonin argues viability or fetal independence is key. He says the fetus has the right to life fully but that because it uses the mother’s body, the mother may have the right to cut off life support in the womb due to that mother’s right to control her body. He uses a very logical analogy of the right of a person to refuse bone marrow to a patient if the donor will be substantially harmed by the donation. Kreeft, in turn, argues the naturalness and inherent healthiness of the state of pregnancy in itself in so far as to say the pregnancy though trying and strenuous is not harming the mother’s body, to use my own analogy, anymore than being hungry a half hour before one’s lunch hour harms one’s body. Rather one’s hunger is simply an inconvenient precondition to one’s being able to recognize hunger in order that it be satisfied within the upcoming lunch hour.
Both debaters bring across strong rationales and I want to stress that though I am pro life, I feel neither speaker fully moved me toward either viewpoint because of the profound logic of each stance. Please listen fully to this 90 minute debate when you have time. This just seems like a discussion which warrants your comments…. So get waxin’!
(Listen here).
Stumble It!
